Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Hidden Side of Co-Creation in a Complex Multi-Stakeholder Environment: When Self-Organization Fails and Emergence Overtakes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Society as an Interaction Space

Part of the book series: Translational Systems Sciences ((TSS,volume 22))

Abstract

Co-creation is typically defined as a mode of collaborative action, which is based on the complex combination of both top-down designing and bottom-up organizing from service beneficiaries. As a practice, co-creation is seen in an affirmative light. It is seen to provide a solution for many service planning, delivery and implementation problems faced by governments and public service organizations. However, in addition to improvement of means of providing public services, co-creation also introduces many challenges. Using the concepts of self-organization and emergence this conceptual chapter explores the hidden side of co-creation, i.e. situations which may produce unforeseen and undesirable consequences. The chapter contributes to both public service research and complexity sciences by introducing a framework which describes how ideal co-creation might turn into participative diversion, pop-up participation or even unintended co-destruction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The CoSIE project will be executed in 2017–2020 and it is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 770492. See more at https://cosie.turkuamk.fi/.

References

  • Aasen, T. M. B. (2009). Innovation as social processes. A participative study of the Statoil R & D program Subsea Increased Oil Recovery (SIOR). Oslo: Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., & Geyer, R. (2017). ‘Pragmatic complexity’ a new foundation for moving beyond ‘evidence-based policy making’? Policy Studies, 38(2), 149–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bella, D. A. (1997). Organized complexity in human affairs: The tobacco industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 977–999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bella, D. A. (2006). Emergence and evil. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 8(2), 102–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bella, D. A., King, J. B., & Kailin, D. (2003). The dark side of organizations and a method to reveal it. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 5(3), 66–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blitz, D. (1992). Emergent evolution: Qualitative novelty and the levels of reality. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boonstra, B., & Boelens, L. (2011). Self-organization in urban development: Towards a new perspective on spatial planning. Urban Research & Practice, 4(2), 99–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse, M., Busch, B., & Sesic, M. D. (2006). Despite and beyond cultural policy: Third and fourth sector practices and strategies. In U. H. Meinhof & A. Triandafyllidou (Eds.), Transcultural Europe: Cultural policy in a changing Europe (pp. 131–156). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing performance: International comparisons. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgon, J. (2009). New directions in public administration: Serving beyond the predictable. Public Policy and Administration, 24(3), 309–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2006). Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services. Public Management Review, 8(4), 493–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., Steen, T., & Verschuere, B. (Eds.). (2018). Co-production and co-creation. Engaging citizens in public services. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P. (2012). Complexity theory in political science and public policy. Political Studies Review, 10, 346–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2011). Complexity and hybrid public administration—Theoretical and empirical challenges. Public Organization Review, 11, 407–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, P. (2005). Knowledge, limits and boundaries. Futures, 37, 605–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daviter, F. (2017). Coping, taming or solving: Alternative approaches to the governance of wicked problems. Policy Studies, 38(6), 571–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, P. (2010). Handboek Ouders in de School. Amersfoort: CPS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faehnle, M., Mäenpää, P., Blomberg, J., & Schulman, H. (2017). Civic engagement 3.0—Reconsidering the roles of citizens in city-making. Yhteiskuntasuunnittelu, 55, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, C., Jalonen, H., Baines, S., Bassi, A., Marsh, C., Moretti, V., & Willoughby, M. (2019). Co-creation of public service innovation—Something old, something new, something borrowed, something tech (Reports from Turku University of Applied Sciences 259). Turku: Turku University of Applied Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, L. H., King, J. B., & Bella, D. A. (2007, July–August). Ending the blame game. Seeing systems in health care organizations. The Physician Executive, 2007, 20–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebauer, H., Johnson, M., & Enquist, B. (2010). Value co-creation as a determinant for success in public transport services: A study of the Swiss federal railway operator (SBB). Managing Service Quality, 20(6), 511–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerrits, L., & Marks, P. (2015). How the complexity sciences can inform public administration: An assessment. Public Administration, 93(2), 539–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geyer, R. (2012). Can complexity move UK policy beyond ‘evidence-based policy making’ and the ‘audit culture’? Applying a ‘complexity cascade’ to education and health policy. Political Studies, 60, 20–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 1(1), 49–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grönlund, H. (2016). Vapaaehtoistoiminta vuonna 2025 [Volunteering in 2025]. In E. Innola (Ed.), Kohti kattavampaa varautumista [Towards more comprehensive preparedness] (pp. 57–61). Helsinki: The Security Committee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazy, J. K., Goldstein, J. A., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2007). Complex systems leadership theory new perspectives from complexity science on social and organizational effectiveness. Mansfield: ISCE Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(3), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbert, M., & Gupta, J. (2015, June). The split ladder of participation: A diagnostic, strategic, and evaluation tool to assess when participation is necessary. Environmental Science & Policy, 50, 100–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalonen, H., & Juntunen, P. (2011). Enabling innovation in complex welfare service systems. Journal of Service Science and Management, 4(4), 401–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, D., Wilson, R., & Martin, M. (2019). The (im)possibilities of open data. Public Money and Management, 39(5), 364–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johannessen, S. O. (2018). Strategies, leadership and complexity in crisis and emergency operations. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J.-E., & Vakkuri, J. (2017). Governing hybrid organisations. Exploring diversity of institutional life. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • King, J., Down, J. T., & Bella, D. A. (2002). Learning to think on circles. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(2), 161–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. (2012). Governance network theory: Past, present and future. Policy & Politics, 40(4), 587–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotus, J., & Sowada, T. (2017). Behavioural model of collaborative urban management: Extending the concept of Arnstein’s ladder. Cities, 65, 78–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee Jenni, G. D. L., Peterson, M. N., & Katz, J. (2015). Military perspectives on public relations related to environmental issues. Journal of Public Relations, 27(4), 353–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lember, V., Brandsen, T., & Tõnurist, P. (2019). The potential impacts of digital technologies on co-production and co-creation. Public Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linstead, S., Maréchal, G., & Griffin, R. W. (2014). Theorizing and researching the dark side of organization. Organization Studies, 35(2), 165–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, D. F., Schulze, K., & Voss, M. (2018). Emerging citizen responses to disasters in Germany. Disaster myths as an impediment for a collaboration of unaffiliated responders and professional rescue forces. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(3), 358–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäenpää, P., & Faehnle, M. (2017). Civic activism as a resource for cities. Helsinki Quarterly, 1, 68–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mäenpää, P., & Faehnle, M. (2018). Urban civic activism: Solutions for the governance of a self-organising urban community. Helsinki Quarterly, 2, 38–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mäenpää, P., Faehnle, M., & Schulman, H. (2017). Kaupunkiaktivismi, jakamistalous ja neljäs sektori [Civic activism, sharing economy and the fourth sector]. In P. Bäcklund, J. Häkli, & H. Schulman (Eds.), Kansalaiset kaupunkia kehittämässä [Citizens developing the city] (pp. 239–259). Tampere: Tampere University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLennan, B., Whittaker, J., & Handmer, J. (2016). The changing landscape of disaster volunteering: Opportunities, responses and gaps in Australia. Natural Hazards, 84(3), 2031–2048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003). Ten principles of complexity and enabling infrastructures. In E. Mitleton-Kelly (Ed.), Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organizations: The application of complexity theory to organizations (pp. 23–50). New York: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morçöl, G. (2012). A complexity theory for public policy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J., Rhodes, M. L., Meek, J. W., & Denyer, D. (2017). Managing the entanglement: Complexity leadership in public sector systems. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 692–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. (2018). From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: Are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation. Public Administration Review, 20(2), 225–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S., & Strokosch, K. (2013). It takes two to tango? Understanding the co-production of public services by integrating the services management and public administration perspectives. British Journal of Management, 24, 531–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G., Lynn, T., & Wargent, M. (2015). Sticking to the script? The co-production of neighbourhood planning in England. Town Planning Review, 86(5), 519–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanska, D. V. (2018). Going against institutionalization: New forms of urban activism in Poland. Journal of Urban Affairs. Published online. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2017.1422982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisio, H., Puustinen, A., & Vartiainen, P. (2018). The concept of wicked problems: Improving the understanding of managing problem wickedness in health and social care. In W. Thomas, A. Hujala, S. Laulainen, & R. McMurray (Eds.), The management of wicked problems in health and social care (pp. 3–20). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Raisio, H., Puustinen, A., Norri-Sederholm, T., & Jalava, J. (2019). “Those who agree to play on our terms will be taken in”: A qualitative study of the perceptions of public authorities and NGO representatives regarding self-organizing fourth-sector activity. Public Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 4–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rantanen, A., & Faehnle, M. (2017). Self-organisation challenging institutional planning: Towards a new urban research and planning paradigm—A Finnish review. The Finnish Journal of Urban Studies, 55, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rask, M., Mačiukaitė-Žvinienė, S., Tauginienė, L., Dikčius, V., Matschoss, K., Aarrevaara, T., & d’Andrea, L. (2018). Public participation, science and society: Tools for dynamic and responsible governance of research and innovation. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, K. A. (2008). Managing complex organizations: Complexity thinking and the science and art of management. Emergence, Complexity and Organization, 10(2), 13–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rock, J., McGuire, M., & Rogers, A. (2018). Multidisciplinary perspectives on co-creation. Science Communication, 40(4), 541–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakellariou, A. (2018). Rapid evidence appraisal of the current state of co-creation in ten European countries (Reports from Turku University of Applied Sciences 251). Turku.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. D. (2007). Strategic management and organisational dynamics: The challenge of complexity to ways of thinking about organisations. London: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. (2010). Complexity and organizational realities: Uncertainty and the need to rethink management after the collapse of investment capitalism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen, T., Brandsen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2018). The dark side of co-creation and co-production of co-production and co-creation. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation. Engaging citizens in public services (pp. 284–293). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J., Sørensen, E., & Røiseland, A. (2016). Transforming the public sector into an Arena for co-creation: Barriers, drivers, benefits, and ways forward. Administration & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716680057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tritter, J. Q., & McCallum, A. (2006). The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy, 76(2), 156–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2017). Complexity leadership: Enabling people and organization for adaptability. Organizational Dynamics, 46, 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 89–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verschuere, B., Vanleene, D., Steen, T., & Brandsen, T. (2018). Democratic co-production: Concepts and determinants. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation. Engaging citizens in public services (pp. 243–251). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Virta, S., & Branders, M. (2016). Legitimate security? Understanding the contingencies of security and deliberation. The British Journal of Criminology, 56(6), 1146–1164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V., Fleming, A., Timeus, K., Tonurist, P., & Tummers, L. J. (2017). Does co-creation impact public service delivery? Public Money & Management, 37(5), 365–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. N., Kang, S.-C., & Johnson, J. (2015). (Co)-contamination as the dark side of co-production: Public value failures in co-production processes. Public Management Review, 18(5), 692–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was created in conjunction with the Co-creation of Service Innovation in Europe (CoSIE) project. The project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme H2020-SC6-COCREATION-2017 under grant agreement No 770492. www.cosie-project.eu

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland

    Harri Jalonen

  2. Emergency Services Academy Finland, Kuopio, Finland

    Alisa Puustinen

  3. University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland

    Harri Raisio

Authors
  1. Harri Jalonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alisa Puustinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Harri Raisio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harri Jalonen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland

    Hanna Lehtimäki

  2. Frisky & Anjoy, Helsinki, Finland

    Petri Uusikylä

  3. Research and Development, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland

    Anssi Smedlund

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Jalonen, H., Puustinen, A., Raisio, H. (2020). The Hidden Side of Co-Creation in a Complex Multi-Stakeholder Environment: When Self-Organization Fails and Emergence Overtakes. In: Lehtimäki, H., Uusikylä, P., Smedlund, A. (eds) Society as an Interaction Space. Translational Systems Sciences, vol 22. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0069-5_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation